Do you agree with the view that, in the years 1511-27, English successes in foreign policy outweighed the failures?

I agree with the view that English successes in foreign policy outweighed the failures in the years 1511-27 to a certain extent. England managed to successfully pursue a policy of peace making in the years 1514-21 and wolsey was flexible in his diplomacy. However, it could also be argued that Henry’s chief aim, the invasion of France, was unpopular with people at the time and that Henry’s foreign policy was too costly given how little of long term value it brought to England. His allies also often let him down and put their own aims before those of England. In this essay I will be looking at three sources and weighing up the two sides of the argument.

A point in support of this view is that that England managed to successfully pursue a policy of peace making in the years 1514-21. This is shown in source 4, where MD Palmer tells us that Wolsey successfully brought about peace between England and France in 1514 and that he engineered the universal peace of London in 1518. He also planned the Field of the Cloth of Gold of 1520 and negotiated peace between the Empire and France at Calais in 1521. Wolsey’s peaceful approach also benefitted England in that it reduced costs at a time when the country could not afford another war, and successfully made England a major ‘player’ in Europe, which was a desire of Henry’s.

Another point in support of the view that the successes in foreign policy outweighed the failures is that Wolsey was sly and flexible in his diplomacy. We can see this is source 4 which shows us how Wolsey used the pursuit of peace as a weapon to deceive the French. This argument is also supported in Source 6, where Alastair Armstrong gives Wolsey credit for aligning England with the strongest power in Europe from 1521, in spite of criticising other aspects of English foreign policy.

Source 5 is against the view that successes in foreign policy outweighed the failures, as William Warham says that it was ‘widely spoken’ that invading France would be too expensive and that even if England was successful it would take too much time and money to keep France'. This suggests that an invasion of France was unpopular with people at the time. Further evidence to support this is the failure of the Amicable Grant of 1525. Wolsey set about raising funds to invade France by attempting to levy a tax, without the approval of parliament. This led to protests and refusal to pay, showing that people at the time were not willing to finance an invasion of France.

Another point against the view that success in foreign policy outweighed the failures is that Henry’s foreign policy was too costly. We learn this from Source 6 where Armstrong calls English foreign policy ‘short-sighted, costly and out of date’. He refers to how little even the successful campaigns of 1512-13 brought to England and tells us that £1.4 million was spent on wars in the years 1511-25, money Armstrong considers was ‘squandered’. English tax revenue was vastly inferior to that of France or the Empire, because of England’s much smaller population.

Source 6 is against the view that success in foreign policy outweighed the failures, as it suggests that Henry’s allies often let him down. Armstrong tells us that Charles V, when allied with Henry, increasingly pursued his own aims and ambitions after 1521. Further evidence of this is in 1525 after the Battle of Pavia, as Charles had no interest in Henry’s proposal that they invade France together.

Overall, i disagree with the view that successes in foreign policy outweighed the failures. Henry failed to invade France as the operation was too costly and not backed by contemporaries. England’s scant resources were simply not enough to finance glory on the scale that Henry wanted it and as a result he often had to rely on allies who let him down. The people of England did not support Henry in his aims, which shows just how little his foreign policy brought England.